Posted
by
ScuttleMonkeyon Tuesday November 14, 2006 @07:18AM
from the hard-to-swallow dept.

dptalia writes "Scientists have found a new pain killer based on human saliva. Apparently 1 gram of the new drug provides as much pain blocking as 3 grams of morphine. The drug blocks the breakdown of the body's natural pain killing mechanism. Scientists say the molecule is simple and synthesis is expected to be simple."

I've been on several pain management clinics/programs - the last one being pretty much on the cutting edge of medical stuff (lots of experts trained in new stuff who travel worldwide for conferences about pain management and all). I've been taking morphine several times a day for a few years for chronic pain. It sucks. The side effects suck. But it's the only thing that's given me anything close to a "quality of life".

If it helps to put things in perspective, in the last group (about 20 ppl), when asked if we had honestly thought about ending our lives to make the pain stop, nobody's answered no. Being in excruciating pain each and every second of your life is very hard. You don't get a break when you can't handle it anymore. It's almost like being tortured, and it never ever stops, until the day you die.

It's a very hard thing to live. Hard to get or keep a job too, when almost half the time you're either in too much pain to be useful for anything or taken too much morphine that you're not "all there" anymore. You can't drive when you're taking the stuff either. Half the docs out there see you as an addict or something. And there's the complications and side effects. And when things happen like you catch a cold or gastro and you vomit, then you can't keep down your morphine either, then things start to go REALLY bad. You gotta to to the hospital, and it's not like they'll just give you a shot no questions asked. Your self-esteem is at an all-time low (no work, feeling worthless and a burden, etc). You can't sleep right. It sucks. Your life sucks. If I didn't have kids to look after, I'd likely have committed suicide a couple years ago just to end the pain.

Any new pain management method is a godsend. If I could, I'd volunteer to test this stuff for free (worst case scenario, I die, and the pain ends with it).

That's the daily reality of someone dealing with chronic pain. Morphine isn't just something for addicts and getting high. It makes the lives of millions bearable and worth living. And it's not just for old folks with cancer either - I just turned 30 last month.

A lot of other medications have fewer side-effects than Morphine. Among them are CR-Oxycodone, Fentanyl, and dilaudid. There's little benefit to prescribing heroin given all of the other options. In fact, the only clear benefit is price. It's cheaper than all of the drugs I mentioned. And to the large majority, price isn't the biggest concern.

The real problem is diversion. A significant percentage of all prescribed opiates are diverted to the black market. There are obviously only estimates and anecdotes, but for some drugs (CR OxyCodone) I've seen numbers as high as 30%. The drugs that are diverted the most have more to do with street price than they do with the frequency of prescription. This is why CR OxyCodone is more of a problem than, say, Hydrocodone (Vicodin) or OxyCodone (Percocet).

It's the opinion of the FDA that heroin would be a nightmare of diversion problems. Furthermore, there isn't a CR form of heroin nor is there, to my knowledge, any Antagonist/Agonist combo that could help prevent diversion. Creation of such a formulary would probably increase the use of prescription heroin but it would cost a lot of money to produce and is, I'm guessing, seen as a risk by the pharma companies due to the serious stigma surrounding the drug.

In short, there's no clinical need for heroin in our current healthcare system. It's primary advantage (cost) doesn't outweigh it's many disadvantages. This is reinforced by the veritable nightmare of diversion that's plagued CR OxyCodone since it's release in the mid nineties.

Except unlike broken glass, nearly all the negative effects of opiates are due to their legal status.

For example, overdoses are due to people not knowing the strength of the drug. Measured doses of pharmaceutical heroin would fix that. Drug related crime occurs because people can't afford the black market markup. Pharmaceutical morphine costs pennies a dose to manufacture.

Heroin addiction itself is actually quite benign. It is not toxic to the body, and due to tolerance maintained addicts can function quite well. There's no reason that a person being addicted to heroin should be any more notable than if they were addicted to caffeine. When they don't need to spend all day engaged in drug-seeking behavior addicts can do almost anything a sober person can, such as found Johns Hopkins University [druglibrary.org].

Suboxone is really a remarkable drug. Unfortunately, due to stigma of other opiates--like, ironically, CR OxyCodone (brand name OxyContin)--the Congress has really crippled the prescription of Suboxone. IIRC, doctors have to have special training to prescribe it and they can only carry a limited number of patients at a given time. A very small number. Something like 30 or so. So it's very limiting, and doctors often have roles of addicts waiting for treatment. Which is tragic if you ask me. People want help but can't get it.

If you have any opiate dependency issues, I highly recommend looking into Suboxone. It's been described as a "wonder drug." One day you're an addict, doing whatever you can to scrape by, the very next day you're in recovery. No withdrawal. No pain. No suffering.

Every report I've seen is that it's recidivism rate is much lower than methadone maintenance.

I want to say one more thing about this. There are an estimated 3 million Americans addicted to prescription pain killers. So there's a good chance that at least a couple people reading this can relate.I've never met an addict during clinical trials that wouldn't give anything to go back to the beginning and prevent the whole debacle from ever happening. It seems there's a "honeymoon period" while people still have a life, but a persons quality of life dimishes quickly when they're inflicted with the diseas

Errr, the people who would be taking it? How many drugs do you think got weeded out that might have made you feel fine now but in 10% of the population made the pain permanently worse? Or caused you to be fine but three years later your fingers fall off? Or caused you to have schitzoid delusions, decide the government was trying to poison you through your orange juice and go down to the minimart and start blowing people away?There have been some very notable drug failures in the past. It's not just an "

I was in hospital one time after an operation and I was on a self administered morhine drip. But it would only give 1mg every 2 minutes (or whatever is the appropriate dose). But the machine also logs how many times you press the button so the staff can see how much pain you think you're in.

So I wouldn't have to count, I pressed the button every time the track changed on my mp3 player. Best hospital visit evar!!!1

I was lying there one time, opened my eyes and the Everquest HUD was there. In the chat window I was being spammed with :

You need to go to the toilet.You need to go to the toilet.You need to go to the toilet.You need to go to the toilet.

Eventually I went and everybody who spoke on the journey, their chat came up in the window.

It was ace.

When they checked the machine they asked me if I was in a lot of pain, I ust said "no I like the morphine" and we all had a laugh. Until they took it off me.

Then they gave me these awful morphine based tablets and they gave me a bad trip so I stopped taking them.

More than the idea of reducing the quantity required, the question is whether this substance can block pain without having addictive qualities. That's a very important question, I think, and one that it seems they don't have the info on yet, because I can't imagine them leaving it out if they knew.

People selfishly swallowing gallons of their own saliva, drinking juices in between just to get their next kick... Oh god, I hope the Republicans take over congress again so they can attack this scourge to society.

Think of the children! Defenseless, even on school yards! We will need to increase the number of police on the streets with packs of flour to stuff into people's mouths to prevent prevent them from getting high.

THC has little to no addictive qualities. It is perverse how something one could grow in ones backyard, for free, is of the highest criminality, yet somehow we feel a need to come up with something else - usually not as good - that requires an entire industrial infrastructure. While it is not hard to understand the reasons for this sad state of affairs, it is still... sad.

I have Brachial Plexus Neuropathy. 10 years ago I got a MRSA infection following a Bankart Repair of my right shoulder. It took 3 months to clear up the infection, and in that time the cords of my right Brachial Plexus were damaged. Now I live in 24 hour constant pain, somewhat as if my arm is being torn off (it isn't).

I take Oxycontin twice a day, with Endone (more oxycodone) as a top up in the case of breakthrough. I go to my Pain Speciali

Very true. Around 15 yrs ago my father was on morphine for nearly a year for chronic pain, and had no trouble going off. As his doctor said back then (perhaps not so scientifically): The pain uses up all of the drug, so there's none leftover to get addicted on.

People take it to self-medicate for emotional pain, which can be every bit as agonizing as physical pain. I would even say it's basically impossible to take morphine when one "doesn't need it". It's a painkiller, and people take it for many types of pain.A drug addict doesn't take drugs to get high, he takes them because he can't tolerate being sober. A person who's problem is only a broken arm or whatever has no problem being sober; he just doesn't want his arm to hurt. When the arm stops hurting, his

The scientists never think these things through, do they? This is going to create huge problems for school discipline. Now whenever students are caught shooting spit balls at other students they can claim they were just implanting an airborne pain killer delivery system.

So, the behaviour observed in animals where they lick wounds, and even in humans, that 'kiss it better' (introduce saliva to the wound), or suck on a sore wound to make it feel better, by instinct, hasn't given the clue that there's something in saliva that helps?There's a whole store of herb and animal lore that's been systematically quashed for decades (well, since the great witch hunts really), and science is only just getting round to looking at it now.There's a lot to be said for 'complimentary' medicine for lesser ailments (although the modern pharmaceutical treatments are definitely magnitudes more effective for front line serious treatment). Rather than just decrying it, perhaps it should be investigated more thoroughly?

Given that the drug appears to be newly discovered, it is probably present only in small concentrations in saliva. Saliva by itself probably doesn't have any painkilling effect. However, since there are many enyzmes present in saliva, sucking and/or spitting on a wound does still have the beneficial effect of cleaning it.

Actually, I believe that the instinct to lick a wound is because saliva contains Lysozyme [wikipedia.org], which makes it easier for white blood cells to engulf a bacterium. Its presence in tears is one of the reasons that you cry when you get something in your eyes.

So, the behaviour observed in animals where they lick wounds, and even in humans, that 'kiss it better' (introduce saliva to the wound), or suck on a sore wound to make it feel better, by instinct, hasn't given the clue that there's something in saliva that helps?

I've been moaning about that for years, and without exception, every pet owner and every vet considered me nuts. I noticed that if you lay a plate of food on the ground and have a dog lick it clean, a thin clear coating builds up on the surface of the plate. Give it a day or two, and washing the plate hot soapy water doesn't remove the coating as you'd think it would.

Mind you I don't know what's in saliva, and as this article suggests, few have stopped to consider the subject long enough to study it. What I do know is that the standard procedure of treating a dog for an injury or skin problem involves topical antiobiotics in combination with a cone that's placed over the dog's head (if a dog has any self respect, it's lost in minutes after the cone goes on). Licking, according to established wisdom, defeats the purpose, infects the wound or injury, saliva is full of germs, blah blah blah. Dogs have been around longer than veterinary medicine, and I doubt there's many wild animals that have membership in an HMO. Put another way, they've been doing fine for longer than we know. And for reasons we can only hope to discover. I let my own dogs lick any itches or wounds they have, and have yet to find something that hasn't healed as it should. I can't say the same for pets of relatives and friends who went the cone-head route.

I could add something on how oral sex relates to the topic at hand, but instead I'll continue with Stuff I Learned About Dogs that similarly runs contrary to a veterinary advice, established wisdom, or published literature. I expect Science will catch up to this, as it will in other areas.

1. Dogs don't need a lot of water. Unless you feed them a steady diet of dried corn meal packaged up as dog food.

2. Dogs don't need or want a steady diet, and feeding your dog "table scraps" (aka "real food") doesn't cause upset and diarrhea. By comparison, if you eat nothing but Corn Flakes every day for 10 years, chances are an ordinary hamburger will cause problems.

3. Dogs are creatures of habit, but seek out a change in regimen when possible. Don't feed your dog in a bowl. Hide the food around the house and make them search for it. Great fun. Even better, roll some soft-boiled eggs across the kitchen floor and let them catch their food. The expression on their face after that first bite is priceless.

4. If given the opportunity, dogs will discover they enjoy fruits and many vegetables (green leafy stuff being the exception, and apples and tomatoes perennial favourites). The best food for dogs is pizza. Yeah, pizza. Pizza has lots of fat (more important than protein for any active dog), it's chewy (all dogs like to chew), and if there's lots of toppings, the scavenger instinct is satisfied. Best served warm, of course.

Obviously, I have way too much free time on my hands. Maybe I can become a scientist.

the collar is to prevent chewing and biting, not licking. Most dogs will reopen wounds or otherwise irritate them unless they are restrained. It most likely has to do with a healing wound being itchy. However, it is most likely not neccessary most of the time, as you suggest.

Other people have already made some relevant points but I figured I'd add mine.Licking wounds is better than no treatment whatsoever, which is what dogs got prior to the invention of medicine.Medicine can be better than either no treatment *or* licking wounds.Evolution has given the dogs a set of responses; human ingenuity has come up with better ones, but the dogs still have their responses wired-in. Hence the satellite-dish-head.Conventional wisdom says that open wounds should be covered and slathered in

"There's a whole store of herb and animal lore that's been systematically quashed for decades (well, since the great witch hunts really), and science is only just getting round to looking at it now."

Make that "a whole store of vague, sometimes contradictory waffle that only intermittently produces results with absolutely no theoretical underpinnings to explain why, how or when it works".

And no-one's quashing anything - if you want to go out on the winter solstice and rub a badger on your varicose veins nobody's stopping you - just don't expect to be able to get it on the National Health Service (or private healthcare, for those countries without a functioning public healthcare system) without the slightest bit of scientific evidence that it's safe and it works.

There are a lot of advances still to be (re-)discovered in traditional herbal and animal lore around the world - of this there is no doubt. Unfortunately there's also a whole load of dangerous horseshit dressed up as traditional lore too, so as a society we don't tend to give credence to a piece of lore until it's been scientifically tested (and ideally until we have some theory as to why it works).

This isn't "quashing" or "destroying" anything - it's called being sensibly prudent. We observe an effect, study it and then use it when we're sure it's safe and effective.

Recall that most of this "store of herbal and animal lore" was discovered by feeding patients a variety of random items and watching for the ones who didn't die horribly from an infection or allergic reaction.

Seriously, what follows isn't meant to start a flame war at all. I'm just curious...I notice a lot of times that when people see a behavior or physical feature in an organism, they begin stating the evolutionary reason it came about.

Isn't this a case of stating some pretty big conjecture with a tone of voice normally reserved for more certain beliefs? I mean, sure licking wounds COULD have been evolutionarily preferred because of either of the two biological reasons stated (anti-germ vs. anti-pain), but h

Saliva contains tonnes of cool stuff. As another poster mentioned, it helps bacterial killing. It also has natural antiseptics and epithelial growth factors (i.e. skin growth encouragers) which speed up wound healing by promoting the migration of neighbouring skin cells to cover the wound.There's a bunch of other stuff too. The evolutionary steps to get these developed in conjunction with wound licking as an instinctive response to promote wounds healing are mind boggling and probably support creationism, a

They isolated a peptide which inhibits two enzymes that chew up enkephalins, the body's natural pain killers. Inhibiting these makes the naturally-released enkephalins hang around longer. The problem is that peptide drugs have a checkered history. See the article linked below.

Well, one thing's for sure. As soon as this stuff is researched, someone will patent it. Let's see how far the patenting idiocy has grown by now. Are they gonna get the patent for the procedure or the patent on saliva?

They won't be able to patent it, but they will be able to patent the method the use to synthesize the molecule. They will be aiming for somethign that is quite complex to make, to increase the benefit of their product. They might even make a derivative, which is slightly different, but many a study will show has much better results.

3 grams of morphine is about 100 times the maximum daily dose for a 70kg adult. The article even mentions that it was per kilo of body weight. Now that would be a huge dose. But nevertheless, it will be interesting to see if this actually makes it into anything useful for human use.

When we hurt ourselves there is a natural instinct to lick the wound so I'm not that surprised that there is a pain killer in saliva. The primary reason for licking a wound is to clean it but if there was a pain killer included as well that would increase the reason for licking the wound and, thus, probably increase the chance of survival of the animal. Natural selection would quickly select those animals that produced the pain killer.

It would invalidate some basic truths:The difference between a paycheck and your dick - don't have to beg the wife to blow the check!The difference between a new wife and a new job - after 6 months the job still sucks!

I find it doubtful that you could have an effective painkiller that wasn't usable recreationally.

The human body's pain regulatory system is tightly bound up with a behaviour-rewarding system. Certain actions which are evolutionarily beneficial (to the species or the tribe, even if not to the individual) trigger a release of endorphins, the body's own homebrew morphine analogues which are also produced in response to pain. When an individual is not in pain, stimulation of the endorphin receptors produces a highly pleasurable sensation.

Opiates such as morphine or heroin are chemically similar enough to endorphins to bind to the same receptors. This makes them good painkillers. It also makes them good ways to induce pleasurable sensations for recreational purposes.

Beside any psychological effect (which may well be habit-forming in its own right), continued over-use of opiates can cause a reduction in the body's endorphin production. When the artificial painkillers wear off, the body is not ready with natural painkillers and so normal bodily functions produce heightened sensations -- the blood can be felt flowing through arteries, the ends of bones can be felt moving past one another, and so on. The exact manifestation of symptoms is a person-to-person variable. Most people find this state unbearable and so seek out more opiates rather than wait for the body's endorphin production to stabilise. This is physical dependence (the body cannot function normally without drugs). At £1 a breath, a heroin habit is not a cheap habit unless you are a rich rock star.

Some people have found that they can naturally produce endorphins in more than sufficient quantities to mask pain, and actually deliberately harm themselves to trigger an endorphin release. (Gripping ice cubes tightly in the hands is one of the least-dangerous ways to cause temporary pain sensations and so trigger endorphin production, and is recommended by some agencies for persistent self-harm practitioners). Others have found that by deliberately performing (what they perceive to be) altruistic acts (such as helping an old lady across the road, whether or not she actually wants to cross the road), they can stimulate endorphin production.

Unless the pain-relieving and pleasure-inducing properties of endorphins are separable, any painkiller that attempts to mimic their action will be both usable recreationally and doubly habit-forming.

The rats? What about those poor bacteria in the saliva, just being sacrificed so the scientists could make the painkiller? There were probably more bacteria in there, eradicated, than there were humans that ever lived!

Can you imagine the pain of being eaten by a large predator? Remember that man's evolutionary ancestors were not always at the top of the food chain; predation has certainly touched you.

Also, the venoms of poisonous animals have evolved to increase pain, allowing the predator to more effectively incapacitate the victim.

Just because mankind removes itself from the sadistic slaughter of the world does not mean that the slaughter itself abates. No matter how violent and predatory we may imagine ourselves to be, we are amateurs compared to what nature has produced.

I hate rats. I'll buy a product based on how many more rats they killed during testing then the nearest competitor.

Next up, little rat-like dogs. Can we require medical testing on those?

I'm completely against animal testing on cute little fuzzy bunnies and cool dogs, like golden retrievers. I'm against testing on some monkeys, but others you can go for it - like that little brown bastard that threw feces on me at the zoo. Give him monkey-AIDS.

Also, I never buy bug repellent that has been tested on mosquitoes. The slaughter must stop!

And here I thought no one understood the plight of the poor malaria mosquito! These once proud creatures roamed the plains by the billions and now due to human eradication programs and bats they're down to mere hundreds of millions! If this continues we could see the end of the malaria mosquito in our great-great-great-great-great grandchildren's time! We owe it to them to preserve this awesome predator! Look at all the contributions the malaria mosquito has brought to us! Without the malaria mosquito we wouldn't have gin and tonic! Without the malaria mosquito the colonial British would have had literally no opposition to taking over the world! We must all do our part to save the malaria mosquito!

As for the small rat-like dogs, I'm afraid they're pretty much worthless even for cruel and inhumane experiments. However, you can still feed them to coyotes. Coyotes are cool dogs like golden retrievers and they eat small rat-like dogs! They go through poodles like I go through popcorn. Yay coyotes! Alligators are no good though. Sure they eat small rat-like dogs and the occasional resident from Florida but they're cold blooded and you know they're trying to bring back the dominance of the dinosaur. I suggest we genetically engineer crocodiles to have warm blood and fur. That'd show them!

Generally you don't have people getting really emotional about hurting animals, not like the way they get all involved in hurting other people.

I thought there was significant evidence that many of those who go on to become anger-excitation rapists and other serial killers of the sort who enjoy torturing their victims usually start off torturing animals then move up to humans when animals no longer provide the same thrill. I certainly once attended a lecture by a forensic psychologist who made this claim

Morphine tested mostly on humans? Where do you get this stuff? It may have been discovered in humans but a simple and quick pubmed search will show thousands upon thousands of morphine studies in animals.

I hate to break it to you but normal OTC pain relievers (acetaminophen, ibuprofen, etc) are all tested on animals as well. I guess you better stick with the crystals and acupuncture.

i think its not so black and white. if you were about to die of cancer and some scientists said they could synthesise a cure by torturing a cage full of rabbits would you want them to? Even though its a horrible choice i cant see that i would choose to die.

on the other hand, testing something so trivial as make up on an animal doesnt have any ethical justification that i can discern. then there's the sliding scale in between.

I can't get the picture out of my mind of a rat being tortured with make up. I picture researchers putting some gastly shade of eye makeup on a female rat and watching to see if she can get a date with a male rat.

I suspect alcohol is involved, which would explain the current ghastly shades of eye makeup available for human women. Don't the researchers realize that after a few cold ones, the male rats could care less about the eye makeup?

Very few people are actually in favor of gratuitous cruelty to animals. The widespread disdain you encounter is rooted in subliminal revulsion at a values system that fails to value humans more than animals. You undoubtedly view yourself as more civilized and humane than people who don't share your values. After complaining for the umpteenth time how barbaric the world is because of animal testing, stop and consider the possibility that maybe your promotion of an absolutely valid aesthetic concern out of proportion to more serious problems is just ludicrous tunnel vision. You want to stand against barbarism? Let's talk about war, poverty, police brutality and a host of other matters. STFU about the damned animals already.

I have a friend who is a neuro-oncology researcher. A very large part of her job is: causing cancer in rats, killing those rats, and sectioning their brains. Horror may be in the eye of the beholder, but she does not practice cruelty. The rats are killed by being placed into a box with CO2 (from a dry-ice chamber). That's probably a more peaceful death than I can expect.

Granted, when you are researching pain meds, there's probably going to be pain involved. But that doesn't mean than the researchers get any pleasure out of causing this pain, or that they cause any more pain than necessary.

If you truly feel that a rat life is worth as much as a human life, or that an hour of rat pain is as bad as an hour of human pain, then it is hard to justify your continued existence. Even if you are as green as you can get, and a hard-core vegan, your ecological footprint is very large (certainly compared to a rat), and responsible for the deaths of many small animals. The fact that you use a computer means that your carbon footprint is not that of a primitive hunter-gatherer. If you eat vegetables and/or grains, you are responsible for the deaths of several small mammals (such as fieldmice) and thousands of insects every week, just from the mechanical harvesting process (even assuming that your food is 'organic' and thus pesticide-free.

It is interesting to note that although it is oxygen that the body requires for metabolism, it is not low oxygen levels that stimulate breathing, but is instead higher carbon dioxide levels. As a result, breathing low-pressure air or a gas mixture with no oxygen at all (e.g., pure nitrogen) leads to loss of consciousness without subjective breathing problems. This is especially perilous for high-altitude fighter pilots, and is also the reason why the instructions in commercial airplanes for case of loss of cabin pressure stress that one should apply the oxygen mask to oneself before helping others--otherwise one risks going unconscious without being aware of the imminent peril.

If you're going to kill through suffocation, there are few more cruel ways than using CO2.

The rats are killed by being placed into a box with CO2 (from a dry-ice chamber). That's probably a more peaceful death than I can expect.

Aside: I'm not against animal research, but as a former animal researcher who euthanized rodents I have to say that this is a rotten way to kill animals. CO2 euthanasia is not quick, the animals are clearly in distress (they die gasping for air, clawing at the container edges, rolling in their urine and feces). I can only imagine that CO2 has become popular because it sounds nice--you know, you put the animals to sleep with some gas that they breath all the time anyway.

Better by far is cervical dislocation--a quick snap of the neck and the animal falls senseless. Unfortunately, that practice is increasingly viewed as barbaric and is discouraged in many places. It's a strange world we live in where we care less about the actual suffering of the animal than how humane we appear to be.

I agree you're absolutely totally right. Evil science experiments torturing poor defenceless animals is just totally evil and we should all stop right now for the good of our souls.On the other hand though science does need to progress, just not so evilly, so I suggest that in future we use nasty, evil or criminal animals for experiments.

Crocodiles for example are pretty evil just lurking in rivers waiting for lovely, amazing, wildebeeste or hapless tourists in Australia to gobble up.

Having worked in both the biotechnology and computer programming fields, I can tell you that there is not going to be a computer simulation that is good enough to obviate the need for all animal testing anytime soon. Biological systems are way too complex to accurately model. Also, there are almost always unexpected synergistic effects with new drugs. Of course, it is ridiculous to test a new hairspray on a rabbits eyes - we pretty much know what's going to

While I agree that it is true most posters have not had to participate in an inhumane act, I think it is wishful thinking to believe that the potential for sadism is not an inherent part of human nature. I would also claim that worrying about animal suffering is a luxury that we are just now (within the last 50 years) able to begin to enjoy, and even then only in the very richest parts of the world. But when you are sick, and need treatment, you lose the luxury of being able to refrain from the sadistic opt

Though many people would seem to be of the opinion that animal life is more important than human life... to them I would suggest that they put "their money where their mouth is" and feed themselves to the nearest pit-bull.

If you (not you eighty4) revere animal life as being so sacred, and consider human life to be as base as it gets, then perhaps you should attempt to remedy that situation by, as I said, feeding yourself to an animal... or is animal life only more important than human life when that human